Malthus’ nightscape is nigh, yo-
Frugal survivalism as if prepping is time sensitive

daily ad

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

angry chimps 1 of 3

ANGRY CHIMPS

The future of warfare is
simply a continuation of our primateforebears ( and, yes, sorry to any religious fundamentalists but I am
guided by evolutionary biology.Not to
say one is more correct than the other-science always serves its practitioners
and they are never completely impartial-but my preferred theory and hence
viewed prism is the latter rather than former ).While you may argue against evolution from
apes and dispute the Earth is older than six thousand years, history and
anthropology and other studies do strongly argue for a furry feces flinger as
whom we descend from.Now, humans are
very different from animals, in many ways.We have opposable thumbs, allowing better use of tools.We have no hair, allowing us to run any
wounded animal into the ground from overheating.Obviously you have to be in shape for that,
such as the idea of the Apache all day runners.Most of you attempting to run down a paraplegic would have a heart
attack after a lifetime of automobile use.We have amazing hand eye coordination allowing use of our first tool (
in all probability ) the rock to be precision delivered at prey and predator
alike.Very importantly, we discovered
how to use fire.Not just to keep
predators away, and to structure nature more to our liking, as important as
that is, but to cook our food.

*

Cooking food doesn’t seem
all that important, but only because we are like fish in water.It seems obvious to us.But cooking allowed us to escape the jungle
where high energy foods were scarce and dispersed.Outside of fruits, it is hard to get a lot of
calories out of raw foods.Eating meat
raw, for instance, is pretty close to worthless as a much higher portion of the
food is eliminated undigested, and that is AFTER the body burns far more energy
attempting to do so.Cooking, however,
not only allows us to fully digest one of the most calorie and protein dense
foods, it transfers the energy needed from the body to the fire.Cooking allowed man to use far less calories
digesting ( for instance, leaves such as apes consume ) and far more thinking (
a bigger brain consumes an amazingly high number of calories-with a payoff only
if the brain is used as a superior tool ).

*

While other animals have
social skills and coordination, humans take it to a whole other level ( as with
all of our unique abilities ).We have
culture, our premier mental tool in adapting to any climate on earth.The fire we have allows us to eat far more
than most other animals can, culture teaches us what can be food, AND how to
process it with tools only humans can wield.We can easily change individual and group behavior to survive.Females easily space pregnancies by prolonged
lactation, alternate sexual practices to eliminate conception ( while still
promoting the pair bonding necessary to elongated rearing of offspring ),
practicing infanticide,changing the
rules to hold off marriage and breeding, etc.But there are two things we still hold in common with the
chimpanzees.First, we are incapable of
outwitting Mother Nature, for all our tools and training and practice.We cannot avoid overreaching our resource
base.Breeding is long term and natural
disasters are short term.And second, we
are just as violent, territorial and aggressive as they are ( and for all our
high tech wonder toys, we fight in a similar manner ).

*

This series of articles
focuses on our warlike behavior, the reasons for it and how that will play out
in the future.But we need a bit of
background to that story.So let’s focus
on our resource base and our inability to conserve.Like most animals, as hard as we attempt to
balance our breeding with our food supply, we are unable to do so.We have much more sophisticated tools to
attempt this than animals do, and while they certainly help in muting the
effects of hunger ( malnourishment being the unhappy but preferable outcome
verses famine ), they cannot be the primary tool as their effectiveness is
still marginal ( it takes nine months of gestation and at least thirteen years
of rearing offspring, whereas locusts and freezes and hurricanes happen in
hours.You CAN’T balance supply and
demand past a certain point with that variable ).The far better tool for this is warfare.More tomorrow.

END

Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at
the top of the page.IF YOU DON’T SEE
THE AD, DISABLE AD BLOCK ( go to the Ad Blocker while on my page and scroll
down the menu to “disable this site” ). You can purchase anything, not just the
linked item. Enter Amazon through my item link and then go to whatever other
item you desire. As long as you don’t leave Amazon until after the order is
placed, I get credit for your purchase. For those that can’t get the
ads because they are blocked by your software, just PayPal me occasionally or
buy me something from my Amazon Wish List once a year.Pay your author-no one works for free.I’m nice enough to publish for mere Book
Money, so do your part.****Contact Information* Links
To Other Blogs * Land In Elko* Lord Bison* my bio & biblio* my web site is
www.bisonprepper.com*Link To All
My Published Books*By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there

I am typing this from my Moonbase retreat right now. My robots provide me with 20 hours of leisure per day. Each room in the base is independent in case of the Martians attacking again.Best luck, Earth-monkeys!

Excellent points! As pointed out, what allow us to spread all over the world is our ability to eat anything. With all due respect to those who practice vegetarianism because of religious reasons, like the Brahman Hindu's, we are omnivores period. With no respect and with much disdain for those who call themselves Vegans, you all are MORONS BTW, humans need meat proteins to maximize health. NO, beans will NOT cut it as a full protein source, period.

OK now that I have that out of my system. Besides our large brain, our energy budget is much lower than our closest relative the chimpanzee, which we share 94-99% of our DNA with. (Depends on the research) An adult male get to about 5 feet tall and 150 pounds, but is much stronger than a human male that is larger. For the Chimp to walk a mile, he would expend way more calories than a human would. We have become very efficient in movement. This lower energy budget and the ability to eat just about anything, allowed us to survive and spread out. Our brain contributed to our tool making abilities. The Neanderthal who was related, but NOT one of our evolutionary ancestors had a very high energy budget. Larger in mass and with a larger brain than we have, 200-300 cubic centimeters, they probably were just as smart as us, but because of Bergmann's Rule or visual processing needs, weren't smarter. (It's possible though) They tended to be much stronger and heavier than Homo Sapiens. Their methodology for hunting was direct confrontation. Imagine standing there with a very heavy spear and waiting for predatory animal to charge you, like a cave bear, and stand your ground while it attacks. This has many disadvantageous. You could get killed is one, but other than that, you have to rely on being real close to kill it. Getting close to a non aggressive animal would be more difficult and casting the heavy spear at it problematic. An Atlatl would allow much further casting distances, speed and accuracy. Along with a us being fleeter of foot with a lower energy budget, probably allowed us to compete, kill or move from areas with less game quicker than the Neanderthal. I watched a documentary on the subject of energy budget, and the very thing James describes happened. A Kalahari Bushman shot an antelope/deer etc with a bow and it didn't kill it. Apparently this was expected, because the Bushman commenced to run this thing into the dirt. The antelope could outrun him in a sprint, but he kept steadily running after it. After many miles in 100 degree heat, the antelope couldn't keep going, because it had over heated and was easily dispatched by Bushman.

As Agent Smith in the Matrix said; "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A VIRUS. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."

I'd argue that animals are forced into an equilibrium violently, and usually quickly, there being no available extra niche to fall back on, resource wise. Man can appropriate any and all niches for himself.

I came across these stats earlier today James while doing an Mturk hit for a paid survey, and thought that you might find it interesting. According to this, only enough oil left for another 45 years at our present usage. Natural gas only fared slightly better. And China seems to have most of the monopoly on rare Earth elements.

The Five Natural Resources Most Drained by Our 7 Billion People

Here's something we can all worry about: The latest Living Planet Report indicates that humanity is now consuming resources at a pace that is 52 percent faster than what the Earth can renew. And that doesn't take into account the rate at which we are depleting non­renewable resources such as fossil fuels, minerals, and metals.

With 7 billion people on the planet, there will be an inevitable increase in the demand on the world's natural resources. Here are five already under severe pressure from current rates of consumption:

1. WaterFreshwater only makes 2.5% of the total volume of the world's water. But considering 70% of that freshwater is in the form of ice and permanent snow cover and that we only have access to 200,000 km3 of freshwater overall, it isn't surprising that demand for water could soon exceed supply. In many regions with high population levels (even in cities in the US), water supplies are already relatively sparse. In the next few decades, severe water scarcity could lead to humanitarian crises and chronic hardship, and set back our efforts to eradicate hunger and severe poverty. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is predicting that by 2025, 1.8 billion people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity.

2. OilThe BP Statistical Review of World Energy in June measured total global oil at 188.8 million tonnes, from proved oil resources at the end of 2010. This is only enough to oil for the next 45 years, should global production remain at the current rate. In the 2011 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency claimed that an anticipated global oil demand of 104 million barrels per day in 2035 will be satisfied. Even if production manages for a time to top the 2010 level of 87 million barrels per day, the goal of 104 million barrels will never be reached and the world’s major consumers will face virtual, if not absolute, scarcity.

3. Natural gasA similar picture to oil exists for natural gas, with enough gas in proven reserves to meet only 55 years of global production at the end of 2010.

4. CoalThis has the largest reserves left of all the fossil fuels, but as China and other developing countries continue to increase their appetite for coal, demand could finally outstrip supply. As it is, we have enough coal to meet only 180 years of global production.

5. Rare earth elementsScandium and terbium are just two of the 17 rare earth minerals that are used in everything from the powerful magnets in wind turbines to the electronic circuits in smartphones. The elements are not as rare as their name suggests but currently 97% of the world’s supply comes from China and they can restrict supplies at will.

Even if these oil figures are correct, they don't take into account net energy return. We are already using a large amount of Fake Oil as our daily energy. When your "oil" delivers one half to one third the energy, taking into account the increased energy to extract, you get far less years of use compared to a similar volume of yesterdays oil. Plus, without cheap and abundant oil, our currently rigged capitalist system implodes economically, leaving no funding for drilling and transport anyway. 45 years is a pipe dream, an optimistic orgy.

To be clear James, I wasn't trying to push an opinion one way or the other. I was thinking that even at 45 years of current usage, that's not much. And you know that there's no way that you're going to remain within the current usage statistic. Petroleum usage will rise exponentially of course, and the U.S. military machine will show no signs of slowing down until it has no other choice. Also, I'm thinking that if the concept of birth control were ever to catch on in the third world, it would have by now. So St. Matthew island reindeer, here we come!

An interesting retrospective snippet of one of the intelligent hairless monkeys who attempted to use math and high-tech toys to dominate determined people far away is The Fog Of War PG-13 2004 featuring interviews with Sec of War Robert McNamara as an 85 year old interspersed with historical footage. I probably need to watch this a few more times to take notes. WWII was imperialists and colonialists "War For Existence" against each other, not really needing to understand culture of the opfor, while VietNam was "limited war" from the US side and unlimited/civilwar from the VietNamese side, so we couldn't win (they merely have to survive, while the invader must "win". The US was unwilling to kill 95% of all Vietnamese then send armed settlers, which is what it would take to "win"). Some folks on the US side made money and had a great time, but only by taking a 1% commission on slaughter and destruction. Does that make the US "evil"? No, but you can make a fine case for "bad".

What the VietNam war did not do is improve American wealth, moral position in the world, defend and protect the American loyal dominant culture, or efficiently use US domestic mineral/energy resources. It did teach the US Army/AirForce how to run mass-mechanized operations in a far-flung location, which they did again in 1991 with military success. If the war was about the oil in the Gulf of Tonkin, we lost. If it was about an illusory "domino theory" against the Soviets/Communists, we lost. If it was the physical-action part of a KGB demorization-disunity program for America (including the 1965 program to import incompatible peoples to the CONUS), the KGB succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. pdxr13

In a darker more cynical moment you might think it had already been decided to wage a cold war to keep the factories humming along, before WWII even ended. Patton was threatening to defeat the cold war enemy. Besides, if we had REALLY wanted to protect ourselves against the Soviets, we never would have leaked the nuke plans to them-we would have bombed them instead.

"...I am guided by evolutionary biology." Darwin's theory of evolution was predicated upon the idea of the simple single-cell organism. Modern microbiology (since the early 1980's or so) has discovered the single cell is irreducibly complex. The more advanced our microscopes become, we discover deeper and deeper layers of complexity such that it's apparent a single cell is just as complex as a modern city. Any modern honest scientist (those that don't have a personal agenda to further or are in fear of losing funding) agree that Darwinistic evolution is impossible.

Ideas have consequences. Be honest with yourself whether your atheism (humanism) is a result of some intentional rebellion from your Christian upbringing (perhaps you had questions that you couldn't get adequate answers for?) or whether you actually believe the best evidence supports Darwinism. You may be interested in a book called "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. He's not a Christian (at least not at the time of writing, don't know about now), so you shouldn't be too offended.Peace out

I'm only interested in proto-humans advancing over the last two million years. And, yes, I'm aware flaws most likely exist in the theory, as in most. But whereas organized religion has an inherent political agenda, at least with scientific theory there is a chance that the theory has some basis in observation and testing ( even with human bias ). I don't mean to disparage anyone's beliefs, I'm an agnostic. What I have a problem with is power directed political religious organizations. I don't believe their information has LESS bias, whereas scientists, in the long run, does.

Thanks for the reply. You may already be aware, but virtually every branch of science, even those that are so advanced that most have never heard of them, were almost exclusively discovered and developed by Christians. The idea of a "neutral-objective" scientest is a myth. EVERYONE is a religionist (no exceptions) with a political agenda. The athiest/agnostic scientist who is searching for more evidence to support Darwinistic theory is desperate to substantiate it, because if he's wrong, he's screwed (literally), and people tend to feel better about their position if they can find a lot of people to agree with them. Also, every so-called ape man transitional form has been proven to be an intentional fraud (wow, look at this transitional form I discovered from this jaw fragment, and now look at the full-sized model I made) or inconclusive. Like I said, I've been reading your stuff for 10 years and have been watching these types of debates go back and forth on occasion. I'm not trying to beat you up, just shed a little light on the matter.Peace out

Almost everyone is an atheist, Christians just as much as other people are.

How is this possible you ask?

Lets say a person is a Christian (insert any religion here) and know for sure their God is the one and only God. That means they dismiss all the other God's people believe in. They are an atheist 99.9% of the time as they say other God's don't exist.

A persons response is that they KNOW their God is the one and only, but there is a real lack of proof on this. Also a good bit of arrogance is involved in dismissing the other 99% and deciding their God is the only God.

907-good points. I might be guilty on more than one occasion of skipping vital distictions and details-inadvertently, I assure you. More for brevity than sloppiness. And a lot of times because I'm incorporating information I've yet fully researched. I try to grasp the overall intent of a subject first, then later, if there is time and inclination, delve further. I make no apologies for generalizing, but I also am aware it can lead to problems now and then. Just as specialization does, in its own way.

"A persons response is that they KNOW their God is the one and only, but there is a real lack of proof on this."

Not true. Unlike all other belief systems, Christianity is based not on an idea or philosophy or even a person, but on an event which took place in space-time: the resurrection of Jesus the Christ. This event is the most fully substantiated event in antiquity and all of Christian doctrine is derived from it. Produce for me the body of Jesus and I'll give up my faith.The American lawyer and law professor Simon Greenleaf (the man who founded Harvard Law School) concluded that legal evidence for the resurrection of Jesus met all of the standards for admission into any court of law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_the_Evangelists)For further reading on the trustworthiness of the Bible as an accurate historical source, see: "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" - http://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198

I must moderate-trust me. You don't want to see what happens otherwise. Sometimes it takes awhile to respond as I only check two or three times a day. No N-Bombs, nothing to get me libeled. Otherwise, have at it. If you criticize me, make sure to praise my hair first.